Southwest Airlines is headed back to federal court on Monday in an attempt to reverse an $800,000 judgment awarded to a former flight attendant who claimed she was terminated due to her pro-life religious views.
The airline also aims to overturn a judge’s order that its lawyers undergo training on religious liberty from a conservative Christian legal group.
The case centers on Charlene Carter, who was fired by Southwest in 2017 after the company said she sent “hostile and graphic” pro-life messages to a colleague who was president of the airline’s flight attendant union.
Carter had criticized the union leader for attending the Women’s March protesting Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration and advocating for abortion.
While Southwest asserted Carter was terminated for violating company policies around workplace civility, her attorneys argued the firing violated federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination by employers. They claimed Carter, as “a pro-life Christian,” had a right to express her beliefs.
After a trial awarding Carter $5.1 million that was later reduced, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered Southwest to inform flight attendants that the airline cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs and practices per federal law.
However, Southwest instead instructed employees it “does not discriminate” while reiterating the internal policy cited for Carter’s termination. The judge then held the airline in contempt.
In an unusual sanction, Starr also mandated that three Southwest lawyers complete at least eight hours of training on religious liberty from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) – a conservative Christian nonprofit.
The ADF has championed high-profile religious freedom cases including defending businesses refusing service for homosexual weddings and challenging federal approval of an abortion pill.
Southwest is now appealing the $800,000 judgment against the airline, which includes $450,000 in damages, as well as the sanctions forcing its lawyers to undergo training from the ADF.
The airline argues the Carter ruling improperly impinged on its rights by compelling speech from its lawyers. Carter’s team countered that court-ordered training is a “commonplace” contempt sanction.
The contentious case has put a spotlight on tensions between companies’ workplace policies and employees citing religious beliefs as grounds for conduct that may violate those rules.